And not one authority cited by Lima as support for its notion that such irresolution is tolerable stands for any such thing. Rather they merely: (1) discuss third-party actions-when this is an action in which the battle is joined between just two opposing parties, see e.g., Wolf v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2013 WL 6596833 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2013); Burris Foods, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 1991 WL 215896 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 26, 1991); Jardel Co., Inc. v. Lakewood Builders, Inc., 1987 WL 11445 (Del. Super. Ct. May 12, 1987); Kilgore v. R.J. Kroener, Inc., 2002 WL 480944, at *5 n.7 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 14, 2002); Slocum v. Ford Motor Co., 314 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981); Schenectady Steel Co. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 300 A.D.2d 854, 855-56 (N.Y. A.D.3d Dep't 2002); (2) fail to address pleading standards at all but reflect only on a defendant's right to implead third parties, see, e.g., Wolf, 2013 WL 6596833; Burris Foods, 1991 WL 215896; Jardel, 1987 WL 11445; or, (3) explain the certain protections inconsistent claims might be granted in third-party actions, see, e.g., Kilgore, 2002 WL 480944, at *5 n.7 (noting that an affirmative pleading on an indemnification issue can't be used as an "admission against interest" by the underlying plaintiff); Slocum, 314 N.W.2d at 549 (standing for the proposition that, i

(cleaned up)).Wolf v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2013 WL 6596833, at *6 (Del. Super. Dec. 9, 2013).Lucent Info. Mgmt., Inc. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 5 Supp. 2d 238, 243 (D. Del. 1998) (quoting Dionisi v. DeCampli, 1995 WL 398536, at *12 (Del. Ch. June 28, 1995)); see Enzo Life Scis., Inc. v. Digene Corp., 295 F.Supp.2d 424, 429 (D. Del. 2003) (applying Delaware law and articulating same standard).

While the Court's discussion is worth reading, it is sufficient for now to say applying Wolf II to this case, GM would be permitted to join the Virginia driver if it could get jurisdiction over him. Wolf v. Toyota Motor Corp., CV N11C-08-149-RRC, 2013 WL 6596833 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2013). Wolf was a case in which the plaintiff brought a crashworthiness claim against Toyota Motor Corp., and Toyota sought leave to add the driver of the vehicle as a third party defendant.